Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum (Archives)

Provided by www.ACkits.com

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Search Auto AC Forum Archives

Windfall Profit Tax.... Pages: 12

meaux on Wed November 09, 2005 7:08 PM User is offlineView users profile

I hear Congress is toying with the idea of a Windfall Profit Tax on the Oil Companys...40+ cents a gallon just ain't enough.

Well, WPT will surely make the price go down huh? LMAO!!!

Even with the price dropping everyday, (to which W will get no credit for) I'll bet 50% of the public will be all for it...Those dastardly Oil Companys... :-)

-------------------------
Lazy bum who lives off his wife.

01 BMW 530i Sport, 92 Porsche 968, 85 F150, 72 911, 08 GM SUV, 01' Ford Lightnin'

TRB on Wed November 09, 2005 8:56 PM User is offlineView users profile

I read somewhere that even with the huge quarter earnings report the oils companies only made 10 percent. That's the same figure the government wants the oil companies to give back to them. With all this concern about gas prices, why won't the government including those "help the poor people liberals" remove all the taxes that they have on gasoline? Heck that could lower a gallon of gas at least a $ 1.00.

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

Russell on Tue November 22, 2005 4:36 PM User is offlineView users profile

I'm all for the flat tax idea. Don't tax what you earn but what you spend!

-------------------------
The difference between liberators and conquerors is the liberators go home.

Chick on Tue November 22, 2005 7:53 PM User is offlineView users profile

Quote
Originally posted by: TRB
I read somewhere that even with the huge quarter earnings report the oils companies only made 10 percent. That's the same figure the government wants the oil companies to give back to them. With all this concern about gas prices, why won't the government including those "help the poor people liberals" remove all the taxes that they have on gasoline? Heck that could lower a gallon of gas at least a $ 1.00.

Had to make a trip to the JerseyShore today...A "Delta" station was "$1.98" a gallon regular.LONG time since I saw that....Hope it's a steady trend..


-------------------------
Chick
Email: Chick

---------------------------------------------

Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose

TRB on Tue November 22, 2005 8:00 PM User is offlineView users profile

Quote
Originally posted by: Russell
I'm all for the flat tax idea. Don't tax what you earn but what you spend!

Something is wrong here as I agree with that statement. There has to be someone out there that is against the flat tax. So it looks like I just lost another customer and this may customer have actually bought something.

-------------------------
When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com


Edited: Tue November 22, 2005 at 8:01 PM by TRB

meaux on Wed November 23, 2005 8:51 AM User is offlineView users profile

All this talk about "Flat Tax, Fair Tax, Consumtion Tax", it's all talk. None of this will ever happen...How about the 40% the Feds get off every multimillion dollar Lottery winner? That's some big bucks...for doing absolutly nothin...The Feds don't earn crap, they just take it.

50% of wage earners pay $0 in income taxes, and alot of them get an "earned income tax credit". How the heck does one get a "credit" for something they didn't pay? It's funny that this same 50% of income earners, scream the loudest when someone in the upper 50% gets a reduction in their taxes?

Fact is, Top 50% of wage earners pay 96.5% of all taxes...Top 25% pay 83.8%...and the Top 1% pay over a third of all Federal Income Taxes, 34.27%.

Thats why I'm so fond of the "Tax Cuts for The Rich", LMAO, shows just how stupid some folks can be.

If allmost 50% of the country is getting all their their income taxes back, and then some, what difference does it make to those folks if the Government gives back a few dollars to the people that are actually PAYING TAXES? It only stands to reason that the more taxes you pay, the bigger the tax cut! Shazaam!

Why is this current economy rolling along just fine? TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!! :-)

To be considered RICH, turns out you only have to make about 40K per year...I'll have to find the exact number, but most everybody that gets a tax break is very, very, far from bieng RICH...

The system we have now is terrific for the Politicians, and you can bet it ain't gonna change.

Did any of you "RICH folks" send back the money Dubya said he would refund? This RICH boy spent his!

My apologies if I turned this into a "Members Only" thread......I lost my head!

-------------------------
Lazy bum who lives off his wife.

01 BMW 530i Sport, 92 Porsche 968, 85 F150, 72 911, 08 GM SUV, 01' Ford Lightnin'

Edited: Wed November 23, 2005 at 9:10 AM by meaux

Minx on Wed November 23, 2005 1:20 PM User is offlineView users profile

What few seem to realize is, oil companies can't help but make larger profits when gas prices rise.

Reason: Unlike most consumer goods, gasoline is taxed per gallon, not as a percentage of price.

So when the price rises, the tax decreases as a percentage of the price.

As a result, profit rises with price, no matter what the cost of crude.

meaux on Wed November 23, 2005 1:35 PM User is offlineView users profile

If the price of crude dosen't matter, then why are the greedy oil companys lowering the price of a gallon?

The cost of crude does matter...crude goes up, gasoline goes up...crude comes down. gasoline goes down...till it gets so bad, they start producing less crude, capping wells, it's happened before.... Take all profit out, with "windfall profit taxes" on top of the 40cents the Feds get now, and there is no reason to be in bidness...I shudder to think of what will happen to the oil business, if the Govt. took over.

If the crybabies in Washington want $6 per gallon, that's what it will be...no matter what the cost of crude...scary huh? When has the Government been held accountable for anything?

Scary....

Hey minx, I know you mean it that way....:-)

-------------------------
Lazy bum who lives off his wife.

01 BMW 530i Sport, 92 Porsche 968, 85 F150, 72 911, 08 GM SUV, 01' Ford Lightnin'

Edited: Wed November 23, 2005 at 1:38 PM by meaux

Russell on Thu November 24, 2005 4:40 AM User is offlineView users profile

Quote
Originally posted by: meaux



Even with the price dropping everyday, (to which W will get no credit for)

Why should he get credit for prices dropping? Did he take any blame when they skyrocketed?



-------------------------
The difference between liberators and conquerors is the liberators go home.

meaux on Thu November 24, 2005 8:56 AM User is offlineView users profile

He sure did, "Bush and his Big Oil buddies, are responsibile for high prices at the pump"

"Whats Bush gonna do about the rising gasoline prices", as if he alone sets it.

Fact is, Bush did something, by lifting the "Blend Requirment" imposed by the EPA that causes gasoline to cost more. Now, gasoline sold in Georgia, can cross state lines and be sold in Alabama, Tennesse, and any other State.

But, you never hear that on the Network News...

-------------------------
Lazy bum who lives off his wife.

01 BMW 530i Sport, 92 Porsche 968, 85 F150, 72 911, 08 GM SUV, 01' Ford Lightnin'

gregg on Thu November 24, 2005 9:19 PM User is offline

I saw interview on PBS with chaiman exxon/mobil...he said it would take 10 years to put another major refinery on line.

Also saw PBS show on why oil prices are so high when there is no shortage of crude to the US.
Exxon/mobil shut down refinery in California and laid off 400 workers couple years ago....they said
that it wasnt profitable....but theyre own records showed it was most profitable (the margin was
highest) than any other plant in the US. Then when Pat Robertson got some investors together
to buy it and reopen it Exxon/mobil went to the banks that they were trying to get loans from and
nixed the whole deal.

so there is a final product shortage....gas/jet fuel /heating oil created by the oil companies that make more money at lower outputs.....why would u want to raise output in such a case. Then congress has their big hearings on how the oil biggies are ripping off the general public...this goes on for a couple days...makes a couple headlines and then pooooof.....dont hear about it again til next time gas hits $3.00 a gallon.

What ever happened to anti trust laws........doesnt make sense when companies with the market share that exxon/mobil has can control the money lent to others trying to open /reopen refineries.
It aint free market with that kind of stuff happening.

Guess theyre trying to get their profits now before figures out a better way to cut gasoline use!!!!

JJM on Sat November 26, 2005 1:29 PM User is offline

So called "windfall profits" are merely an indication that demand is not being met, and are absolutely necessary to assure supply.

Let's say Florida had a major frost, killing almost the entire orange crop. Normally, oranges sell for 79¢ each, but since there are virtually no oranges left in Florida, the remaining growers decide to sell the few oranges they have for $2.89 each. Obviously, those lucky growers will have windfall profits, but more importantly, what's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.

Here is the beauty of windfall profits: They attract others to the market to fill demand. For example, normally it wouldn't make sense from growers in Brazil to ship oranges to New York when oranges sell for only 79¢, and folks in Texas would rather not ship to New York because they hate New Yorkers, but at $2.89, they'll gladly make sure the oranges get to New York so that New Yorkers can enjoy their fresh squeezed orange juice.

Now with the increased profit potential, growers plant more orange crops over other fruits, and production over time greatly increases. As production increases, prices begin to decline. At the same time, high orange prices cause people to consume less oranges, which also ameliorates prices. Instead of drinking orange juice, folks drink apple or papaya juice. Instead of using oranges in fruit displays and baskets, mangos or grapefruits might be used instead. Florida eventually grows another crop, and orange prices return to the norm or likely even much lower.

Now let’s look at what would happen if the government passed a law on windfall profits for oranges: Any orange sales over 79¢ will be taxed at a 50% rate. Now that $2.10 premium drops to $1.05. Given high transportation costs, do you think Brazilians will make quite the concerted effort to get oranges to New York? And what about Texans? They were already paying federal taxes on their profits, another 50% atop of that makes shipping oranges not worth the trouble. California might consider shipping to New York, but with federal, state income, and 50% windfall profits tax, coupled with the high shipping costs, they too decline. Now the only way it makes sense to ship orange to New York is if they can be sold for $3.94 each, and yet this is what the economic illiterates in Congress and te economic illiterates who elect them are advocating for oil.

Of course, the government could just impose price caps on oranges, passing a law that oranges cannot be sold for more than 79¢ each. Now no one will even bother at all getting oranges to New York, and New Yorkers will have to drink powdered or orange juice from concentrate. This obviously makes no one happy. But again, economic illiterates in Congress and the economic illiterates who elect them are advocating this too for oil.

Bottom line is if we want energy prices to go down, we absolutely MUST eliminate all these silly environmental regulations so that production can be increased. The EPA must be shut down, and environmental protestors and dissidents jailed. This is a matter of both our national and economic security.

By the way, I don’t see anyone complaining about the “windfall profits” the government makes by taxing oil, gasoline, natural gas, electric… and nearly other pocket they have their hands in. The “windfall profits” by oil companies are mere peanuts compared to grossly obscene profits the government TAKES by using threats, coercion, intimidation, fear and even violence. How come I never see any hearings on THAT???

Joe

Russell on Sun November 27, 2005 5:02 PM User is offlineView users profile

Quote
Originally posted by: JJM
Bottom line is if we want energy prices to go down, we absolutely MUST eliminate all these silly environmental regulations so that production can be increased. The EPA must be shut down, and environmental protestors and dissidents jailed. This is a matter of both our national and economic security.

Joe,

Please visit China and check out the environment. There has been substancial industrial growth, with no government controls. There are now entire cities with populations in the hundreds of thousands that have to truck in clean drinking water. There are days when it is not safe to go outside. The wildlife is all dead, not a bird in the sky.

If this is the world you wish to live in, then talk to your buddy dubya. I'm sure between the two of you you can figgure out a reason to invade and take democracy there too.

Imagine this scenario.....................there is no EPA and industry is free to operate with no controls. Your oranges are now grown in gigantic indoor greenhouses where the air and water is purified before it reaches the trees.
what do they cost us now?


-------------------------
The difference between liberators and conquerors is the liberators go home.

Edited: Sun November 27, 2005 at 5:15 PM by Russell

Karl Hofmann on Mon November 28, 2005 3:59 AM User is offlineView users profile

About 15 years ago we spent Christmas and new year in Bangkok, by 6am you could see clouds of exhaust fumes billow past the resteraunt windows, the traffic cops wore resperators and for both My wife and I the air was virtually unbreathable. I understand that they have cleaned things up quite a lot in Thailand but if your prime goal in life is CHEAP over quality of life then perhaps you should visit somewhere like China. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make cheap energy by using cheap Soviet style neuclear reactors like the one at Chernoble, gee that would save a whole hill of cash.

Joe I find it amazing that where as most people from third world countries desire to live in a first world country, you want to turn your country in to a third world country.

-------------------------
Never knock on deaths door... Ring the doorbell and run away, death really hates that!

JJM on Mon November 28, 2005 1:42 PM User is offline

I have a question for you green geniuses:

How did the United States survive for 194 years prior December 1970, when legislation establishing the EPA was signed into law?

If my memory serves me correctly, by 1970 the United States had the highest standard of living in the world, far beyond any other nation. Amazing how this happened without any EPA. In fact, life expectancy increased from 47.3 years in 1900 to 70.8 years by 1970... all without the EPA. I guess the dirty environment is what helped people live so much longer.

Since the establishment of the EPA, life expectancy hasn't even increased by 10% in the last 35 years -- despite unprecedented advances in medical technology -- so what exactly have they accomplished, other than make work jobs for government bureaucrats?

I have to laugh at comparing the United States to China or the former Soviet Union. These comparisons are so asinine they defy logic. China and the former Soviet Union are both communist nations, so is any wonder they're so filthy? This is what happens when capitalism is rejected, and the proof is in the fact that it's no coincidence that the wealthiest nations are the cleanest, and the poorest nations also happen to be the filthiest (and least safe).

Given free reign, the environmental movement unquestionably achieve their anti-progress goals and we would quickly slide into Third Worldism and end-up with the opposite goal -- a filthy and unsafe environment. The current filth in New Orleans -- literally a "green" genocide -- is merely prelude of what potends the rest of the nation if environmental zealotry continues unchecked.

Joe

Russell on Mon November 28, 2005 3:34 PM User is offlineView users profile

Joe,

If you had bothered to read and UNDERSTAND the entire report you would know this was an average. The median age at death in 1900 was 58, not 47. The cause of the low AVERAGE was early death. If you survived to the age of 40 the average life expectancy was another 20 years. The median life expectancy at birth in 2002 was 77.3.

The greatest increase of life expectancy came primarily in the younger ages. The probability of an infants first year survival in 1900 was 87.6%, today it is 99.3%. Today most babies are born in hospitals and virtually all have some type of trained health care professional present.

Most of the increase in longevity came in the 1960's when the medical sciences achieved great increases in knowledge and technology, most of this directly attributable to the creation of N.A.S.A.. (you probably consider it a waste )

We only began mass industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels in the early 1900's. The increase of uncontrolled industrialization in the 30's-60's reduced a mans life expectancy considerably.

The increase of obesity in your "affluent" industrialized society in the last 40 years is now the greatest cause of sickness and death. How far are you above your ideal target weight?

To blame the conditions in China on communism shines a VERY bright light on your level of ignorance.


-------------------------
The difference between liberators and conquerors is the liberators go home.

Karl Hofmann on Tue November 29, 2005 3:51 AM User is offlineView users profile

Joe,

Why is it so laughable to compair the US to the Soviet Union or China? Afterall you want to turn the US in to a capitalist version of them where the environment means nothing and proffit means everything, remove your environmental laws and you will turn the US in to a toxic waste dump but with nice cars and widescreen TV. If that is what you want, then feel free it is your country, for a reasonable fee may we dump our toxic and neuclear waste in the US too, it could make you rich

China may be a Communist country but they are taking manufacturing jobs fron our capitalist countries and leaving them a wasteland with massive unemployment. Before long any company that isn't manufacturing in China wont be manufacturing at all.

-------------------------
Never knock on deaths door... Ring the doorbell and run away, death really hates that!

HECAT on Tue November 29, 2005 9:29 AM User is offline

Quote
Originally posted by: Karl Hofmann


China may be a Communist country but they are taking manufacturing jobs fron our capitalist countries and leaving them a wasteland with massive unemployment. Before long any company that isn't manufacturing in China wont be manufacturing at all.

This statement by Karl is exactly why I agree with some of Joe's comments. If we do not reduce the U.S. governments imposed restrictions on U.S. manufacturers we will not survive. U.S. isolationism and holding ourselves to higher standards will not work.

This is not a U.S. problem or a Chinese problem, this is a world problem. We are all breathing the same air and sharing the same oceans. The U.S. Government (EPA and others) is requiring its manufacturers to honor at times what seems to be ridiculous environmental standards, safety standards, wage standards, insurance standards, taxes, and many other issues to make our country "extreme" green. On the other hand the Chinese are operating under the complete opposite standards and while killing their (our) environment they are producing for the most part quality products much much cheaper.

Are we just going to maintain our high environmental and other standards and let this happen? I don't agree with total abolishment, but I do agree there needs to be some aggressive reductions in U.S. regulations.

By reducing the restrictions on U.S. manufacturing and imposing global persuasion on the Chinese and others to comply with some minimum standards, This will be one step towards a balance in global manufacturing and make products produced in any country globally competitive.

As a U.S. manufacturer I can only hope that the EPA, CARB, and EU will focus their efforts and environmental standards on China and others instead of me as the first step towards a global manufacturing balance. The next step would be to address the profiteering by blatant theft of intellectual Property by these same Chinese like manufacturers.

Do I believe this is going to happen? No.

Unfortunately what I do believe that the restrictions imposed upon U.S. manufacturers will continue to grow and our economy will continue to decline without competitive export products. The world will never show the guts to unite against this form of economic "terrorism". The frustrated U.S. public will elect another Republican "cowboy" in our future and fed up with the economic imbalance we will start WW3.



-------------------------


HECAT: www.hecatinc.com You support the Forum when you consider www.ackits.com for your a/c parts.

FLUSHING TECHNICAL PAPER vs2.pdf 

JJM on Tue November 29, 2005 4:39 PM User is offline

Karl and Russell, I find it really funny how both of you seem to believe that if it wasn't for the EPA, we'd all be living in filth. Let me ask you a question, if there were no laws regulating littering whatsoever, would you then throw all your garbage out on your front lawns? Of course not! So why do you think a company, whose owners often live in the same area, would do the same? Would either of you dump toxic chemicals on your own property? Of course not! Why? Because you want to maintain your property values. So do companies who buy properties -- if not, more so.

It just floors me how some seem to think that if it wasn't for the government, none of us would have a clue what to do for ourselves. I, for one, think we humans have a little higher sense of intelligence and morality. Perhaps this is the problem with the left, they view the world through the prisim of their own failings.

Do you folks need to government to tell you where to deficate, or can you figure that out on your own.

Oh, and Russell, I know the facts I pointed out regarding life expectancy don't fit your agenda, but the CDC of your beloved government reports similar life expectancy data:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr51_03t11.pdf#search='Life%20Expectancy%20United%20States%201900'

As you can plainly see, life expectancy in 1900 was NOT 58 years as you claim. Is the CDC lying? Fact is, has been increasing during (and thanks to) industrialization. As P.J. O'Rourke wisely said in I believe 1993:

"... And we're told cars cause pollution. A hundred years ago city streets were ankle deep in horse excrement. What kind of pollution do you want? Would you rather die of cancer at eighty or typhoid fever at nine?"

No truer words can be said.

And no, I do not believe NASA is a waste. A lot of good has come from NASA research... and we're using quite a bit to lite 'em up in Afghanistan and Iraq -- which is a good thing.

And Karl, with respect to gripes about unemployment, you seem to be a little confused. Europe today can hardly be considered capitalist by any measure, so the unemployment you Europeans complain about is the result of socialism more than anything else. Here in the United States, our unemployment rate remains near historic lows at 5.0% -- despite the effects of several major hurricanes:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

HECAT is right about the reasons why you and us both are losing manufacturing jobs, and it all boils down to the "-ations" as follows: Regulation, Taxation, and Litigation.

Joe

Karl Hofmann on Thu December 01, 2005 5:44 PM User is offlineView users profile

HECAT is right about the reasons why you and us both are losing manufacturing jobs, and it all boils down to the "-ations" as follows: Regulation, Taxation, and Litigation.

Well you can get rid of all the "-ations" that you want but the largest part of the cost of any single component is Labour, so are you all willing to work for the cost of your own existance, for little more than the cost of your own food, live in apalling conditions, few posessions, no car? well if you are then you have a chance to compete with China, if not, well we all had our time at the top and now are getting used to having a service economy rather than a manufacturing economy

-------------------------
Never knock on deaths door... Ring the doorbell and run away, death really hates that!

HECAT on Fri December 02, 2005 8:57 AM User is offline

Karl,

I believe the American manufacturer can compete! Maybe not on a global scale, but we can with products manufactured and consumed here in the U.S.

After the Chinese peasant working for food completes the product the business owner (manufacturer) takes his cut, then the local Chinese government officials take their cut, etc. The exporting costs (customs brokers, transportation, import taxes, etc.) will have to be added to the U.S. landed cost of the product.

American manufacturers will have to become leaner, one method is by the reduction of government controls as we have already been discussing. And yes, the American worker will have to accept some sacrifices to keep their jobs. Unions, Insurance Companies, lawyers, etc. will all also have to make sacrifices and concessions to the future success of American manufacturing.

-------------------------



HECAT: www.hecatinc.com You support the Forum when you consider www.ackits.com for your a/c parts.

FLUSHING TECHNICAL PAPER vs2.pdf 

Karl Hofmann on Fri December 02, 2005 4:56 PM User is offlineView users profile

Agreed, there will always be a good market for custom, small volume or specialist goods, this is what we tend to do now over here, anything that is to be made in bulk or huge quantities will always be made cheaper by the Chinese.

A good example of this is the British car industry, the remnants of which recently imploded. Years of building shoddy dull cars are over, but there are many small specialist manufacturers producing some really fun and exciting cars, my favorite of which is Ariel cars, which employ only a handfull of guys but produce some stunning vehicles. Still saving my pennies for my Atom

-------------------------
Never knock on deaths door... Ring the doorbell and run away, death really hates that!

HECAT on Mon December 05, 2005 8:30 AM User is offline

Karl,

Wow! we agree!

I took a look at the Ariel Atom, a bunch of these and a bunch of us on a closed road course would be a blast. However, driving one of those here in Atlanta rush hour traffic where the freeways are 6 or more lanes in each direction and the average speed is over 80 MPH would be suicide. In my big truck, in a 15 car pile up (daily occurrence somewhere in Atlanta), chances are that I will be OK. In an Aerial Atom they would be trying to figure out what vehicle your body parts came from. But I do envision it would be fun to blast some of the old UK country roads I remember.

-------------------------



HECAT: www.hecatinc.com You support the Forum when you consider www.ackits.com for your a/c parts.

FLUSHING TECHNICAL PAPER vs2.pdf 

Back to Off Topic Chat

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Copyright © 2016 Arizona Mobile Air Inc.